Editor's Note :

We are expecting one or more decisions in argued cases tomorrow at 10 a.m. We will be live-blogging the opinion(s) as they are released. However, there is no live blog of tomorrow’s oral argument in King v. Burwell. We will have coverage of that argument as soon as possible after it is finished; the transcript should be available tomorrow afternoon, and the audio will be available on Friday. Wednesday's live blog will be available here.

Tuesday round-up

Posted Tue, July 9th, 2013 10:27 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko

Briefly:

Lyle Denniston reports for this blog that the Electronic Privacy Information Center has asked the Court to nullify an order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that authorized the government to collect data from customers in the United States as part of a global surveillance operation.

Also at this blog, Ronald Collins previews Adam Liptak’s newly released e-book, To Have and Uphold: The Supreme Court and the Battle for Same-Sex Marriage, which presents a narrative of the same-sex marriage cases the Court decided two weeks ago – United States v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8).

Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic reports on the case of Warren Hill, a Georgia death row inmate who has asked the Court to stay his execution – currently scheduled for next Monday – on the ground that he is “mentally retarded beyond a reasonable doubt.” In 2002, the Court held in Atkins v. Virginia that the execution of an individual who is mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment.

At The Washington Post, David Fahrenthold reports on the continuing case of Marvin Horne, the raisin farmer who challenged a federal law requiring him to turn over part of his crop without compensation or else pay a fine. This Term, in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court unanimously held that the farmer could bring his “takings” claim in a regular federal district court without first paying the fine assessed him for violating the regulation.

Disclosures: Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. Perry, while the firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor.

Merits Case Pages and Archives

On Monday the Court issued orders from its February 27 Conference. Two new cases were granted. On Tuesday the Court announced its decision in Direct Marketing v. Brohl. This is the second week of the February sitting.

“I think always the humor was a means to an end. And the end is, to help folks who don’t live in this world understand why it matters.” Dahlia Lithwick covers the Supreme Court and writes about law more broadly for Slate.com. In this six-part interview, Ms. Lithwick discusses law school, practicing law, and how […]